About Elizabeth Warren’s “Troubling” New TV Ad & “Flawed Approach” Comparing The U.S. Unfavorably To China
Boston Globe‘s Garrett Quinn: “The Usage Of The ‘Why Can’t We Be Like China’ Imagery Is Baffling, Troubling Even, When You Remember That Warren Is Running For An Elected Office In A Free Country.” “The usage of the ‘why can’t we be like China’ imagery is baffling, troubling even, when you remember that Warren is running for an elected office in a free country. When politicians and people in power talk about ‘being more like China’ what they are really saying is, ‘Why can’t we give more power to the government to spend and build things while running roughshod over the people?’” (Garrett Quinn, “Warren’s Dangerous China Talk,” Boston Globe‘s “Less Is More” Blog, 7/31/12)
· Quinn: “People who love China tend to complain about the sausage making in our democratic system but they rarely criticize the bulldozing in the Chinese system. Oh, and they ignore basic facts that give context to China’s recent growth. China and the United States are at two completely different points in their development as nations so of course they are spending more on infrastructure right now. They are able to spend so much money right now because they don’t have roads, highways, rails, etc.” (Garrett Quinn, “Warren’s Dangerous China Talk,”Boston Globe‘s “Less Is More” Blog, 7/31/12)
Wall Street Journal: “Of Course The Harvard Academic Doesn’t Reveal That This Money Can Only Come From Higher Taxes.” “President Obama has backtracked quickly, using every opportunity of late to tout his pro-business credentials … Not so Ms. Warren, whose campaign released a new ad Friday that calls for more of the same Keynesian medicine. ‘China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure,’ she says in the commercial titled ‘Rebuild,’ which includes scenes of dour-looking construction workers. ‘America? We’re at just 2.4%. We can do better.’ Of course the Harvard academic doesn’t reveal that this money can only come from higher taxes. Nor does she explain why she would spend the money any more wisely than the Pelosi Congress did.” (Mary Kissell, “Warren Doubles Down,” Wall Street Journal, 7/30/12)
· WSJ: “But in an economy that’s still listing, Ms. Warren’s decision to advocate for more of the same failed policies is, at the very least, a remarkable thing to behold.” (Mary Kissell, “Warren Doubles Down,” Wall Street Journal, 7/30/12)
New York Sun: “Professor Warren’s Approach Is So Flawed That It’s Amazing That Her Campaign Would Spend The Money On Putting It Into A Prime-Time Olympics Commercial That Was Presumably Designed Not To Alienate People But Rather To Get Them To Vote For Her.” “Professor Warren’s approach is so flawed that it’s amazing that her campaign would spend the money on putting it into a prime-time Olympics commercial that was presumably designed not to alienate people but rather to get them to vote for her. You really have to see it to believe it.” (Ira Stoll, “Elizabeth Warren Praising Communist China As A Model For America,” New York Sun, 7/30/12)
· The Sun: “That’s An Immense Spending Increase.” “The first problem is mathematical. U.S. gross domestic product is about $15 trillion a year. Increasing infrastructure ‘investment’ to the 9% Chinese level that Ms. Warren cites would mean an additional $1 trillion a year in government spending. That’s an immense spending increase. To put it in context, the entire federal government spent about $3.6 trillion in 2011, on revenues of about $2.3 trillion.” (Ira Stoll, “Elizabeth Warren Praising Communist China As A Model For America,” New York Sun, 7/30/12)
· The Sun: “[S]He’d Have To Go On The Biggest Borrowing Or Taxing Binge In American History.”“Where would this money come from? Not tax increases, right? Ms. Warren has already reportedly promised nearly a trillion dollar tax increase, spread over ten years, by raising the estate tax, imposing the Buffett Rule, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those earning $250,000 a year or more. But that money, she has said, would go toward deficit reduction. If Ms. Warren really wants to spend $1 trillion a year more on infrastructure, she’d need to eliminate all national defense spending ($705 billion) or all Social Security spending ($730 billion) and then find another more than quarter trillion dollars. Or else she’d have to go on the biggest borrowing or taxing binge in American history.”(Ira Stoll, “Elizabeth Warren Praising Communist China As A Model For America,” New York Sun, 7/30/12)
